Transcript Cocoa ME+1

Cocoa ME+1 vs PG
James N. Bellinger
University of Wisconsin-Madison
2-March-2009
1
Data used
0T
Distancemeter
DCOPS
Link
16-Nov average
11-Nov event
from Celso
3.8T
Distancemeter
DCOPS
Link
1-4 Nov average
27-Oct event
from Celso
PG
PG within disk
Supplementary
PG of disk
UR-0058 (2006) (Oleg cleaned it up)
UR-0103 (2008)
UR-0124 (after Craft)
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
2
Chamber center Z deviations
The Cocoa 0T fits
are not far from
the PG numbers
The 1_2 chamber
deviations with
field agree w/
Celso's numbers
The HSLM6 fits are
bad because of a
blocked IR target
Cocoa
Fit 3.8T - Fit 0T
Cocoa
Fit 0T - P.G.
ME+1/3/03
-1.76
-0.71
ME+1/3/09
-0.01
2.08
ME+1/3/14
0.15
2.27
ME+1/3/20
-1.46
-0.24
ME+1/3/27
-3.1
-1.88
ME+1/3/33
-8.33
3.27
ME+1/2/02
-8.24
0.16
ME+1/2/08
-7.36
2.46
ME+1/2/14
-6.81
0.25
ME+1/2/20
-8.23
-0.62
ME+1/2/26
-8.67
0.65
ME+1/2/32
-8.96
2.11
3
Chamber Z deviations
Cocoa 3.8T and 0T vs Ideal
Fit 0TFit Ideal
Cocoa 3.8T
Cocoa 0T
Cocoa Ideal
3.8T-Ideal
X
Y
Z
X
Y
Z
ME+1/3/03
0.58
-2.17
-1.16
0.58
-2.14
-2.93
ME+1/3/09
2.31
-0.62
-4.38
2.2
-0.59
-4.39
ME+1/3/14
-0.32
-0.32
-3
-0.17
-0.17
-2.85
ME+1/3/20
0.11
-0.43
1.28
0.04
-0.13
-0.18
Ideal fit uses ME+1/3/27
ideal geom
ME+1/3/33
and nominal ME+1/2/02
measurements ME+1/2/08
1.03
-0.28
2.57
1.29
-0.35
-0.53
-0.89
-0.88
8.33
0
0
-0.01
0.9
-3.38
1.16
0.98
-3.66
-7.08
3.46
-0.93
-0.54
3.51
-0.93
-7.89
ME+1/2/14
-0.07
-0.07
-0.93
0.07
0.07
-7.74
ME+1/2/20
-0.03
0.11
2.47
-0.1
0.37
-5.76
ME+1/2/26
0.92
-0.24
5.77
1.03
-0.28
-2.9
ME+1/2/32
-0.29
-0.27
5.3
-0.4
-0.4
-3.66
4
Fit Ring (average of all chambers) Position
Deviations from Ideal
0T-Ideal 0T-Ideal 0T-Ideal
X
Y
Z
3.8TIdeal
X
3.8TIdeal
Y
3.8TIdeal
Z
+1/3
.74
-.76
-.94
.79
-.68
-2.18
+1/2
.98
-.98
1.59
1.10
-.97
-6.27
PG
(disk)
.58
-1.37
0.57
NA
NA
NA
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
5
Cocoa Fit Ideal vs DDD
• Only 6 entries.
Cocoa Ideal minus
DDD geometry
X-xddd
• Ring 3 only
• TODO: where did
8.415mm come from Y-yddd
Z-zddd
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Mean
microns
RMS
microns
-17
69
-55
52
8.415
mm
1
6
ME+1/3 chamber tilts (mrad)
0T
3.8T
3.8T-0T
ME+1/3/03
-0.5
1.53
2.03
ME+1/3/09
-0.83
1.99
2.83
ME+1/3/14
-1.14
1.09
2.23
ME+1/3/20
0.41
2.63
2.22
ME+1/3/27
-1.93
-0.69
1.25
ME+1/3/33
2.22
0
-2.22
AVERAGE
-0.8
1.3
2.1
At disk top
At disk bottom
Tilts (mrad) determined from DCOPS Z positions at upper and lower
ends of each chamber
7
Method for Predicting Z from PG
Get PG (X,Y,Z) wrt disk center from UR-0058 or
UR-0103
Rotate disk as specified in UR-0124
Translate disk as specified in UR-0124
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
8
PG targets and Cocoa 0T Fits:
Z of DCOPS dowels
XFER
PG
Pred
1/3Out
PG
Pred
1/3In
PG
Pred
XFer
Cocoa
1/3Out
Cocoa
1/3In
Cocoa
XFer
CocoPG
1/3Out
CocoPG
1/3In
CocoPG
HSLM1
6823.5
4
6822.8
9
6823.7
4
6822.0
7
6821.6
7
6822.5
2
-1.47
-1.22
-1.22
HSLM2
6814.7
9
6809.6
8
6817.5
7
6819.2
8
6818.1
3
6819.5
7
4.49
8.45
2.00
HSLM3
6817.6
7
6816.9
9
6820.1
2
6819.7
8
6818.8
6
6820.8
2
2.11
1.87
0.70
HSLM4
6826.7
9
6825.8
0
6826.1
6
6825.6
8
6825.0
9
6824.3
9
-1.11
-0.72
-1.77
HSLM5
6826.2
7
6817.9
1
6828.2
2
6825.6
2
6824.1
8
6827.5
1
-0.66
6.27
-0.71
6829.1 6826.1 6828.1 6838.0 6833.6 6829.7
8.97
7.43
1.64
0
7
5
6
0
9
Uses the DCOPS PG targets to predict the DCOPS dowel positions
for the Xfer DCOPS and the ME+1/3 DCOPS
9
Different target holders at ME+1/3/09_outer and ME+1/3/27_outer?? Inconsistent
HSLM6
DCOPS from PG and Cocoa 0T Fit
Summary
DCOPS Dowel positions: 0T Cocoa fit –
predicted from PG
Transfer: mean=0.67, rms=2.29mm
1/3_outer: mean=2.93, rms=3.83mm
1/3_inner: mean=-0.20, rms=1.37mm
HSLM6 is not included
RMS is large, and at least partly attributable to
PG problems
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
10
Deviations from Ideal
Chamber mounting errors: should not exceed a
few mm
PG measurement errors: supposedly 300 microns
but I don’t believe that anymore
Cocoa fitting errors
Real distortions because of the field
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
11
Cocoa Estimated Errors
Cocoa returns some estimated errors for
quantities in the coordinate system of the mother
volume
(Cocoa uses a hierarchical system description)
If I assume that off-diagonal entries are 0, I can
transform this to the CMS coordinate system
I have no sense of how well Cocoa estimates
errors
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
12
3.8T Cocoa 1/3 Chamber Centers
mm, Cocoa
errors
X
Y
Z
ME+1/3_03
5593.20 ± .37
2033.34 ± .31
6864.52 ± .13
ME+1/3_09
1035.73 ± .30
5860.51 ± .38
6863.06 ± .13
ME+1/3_14
-3825.85 ± .25
4558.86 ± .23
6864.59 ± .37
ME+1/3_20
-5861.03 ± .16
-1033.74 ± .30
6867.26 ± .37
ME+1/3_27
-1032.27 ± .30
-5861.44 ± .38
6866.91 ± .13
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
13
PG errors and chamber mismounts
PG deviations from Ideal include
1. PG error, typos, and wrong targets
2. Real chamber mismount
3. Overall shifts and rotations of the disk
Subtract the overall shifts and rotations to get a
better picture of the PG errors and mismount
errors
In what follows PG Chamber centers are derived
from alignment pin locations
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
14
PG vs DDD, ME+1/2
Chamber
centers
Overall
rotations and
translations
are removed
Deviations
combine PG
error and
chamber
mounting
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Max x/y
dev is
2.2mm
cm
15
PG vs DDD, ME+1/3
Chamber
centers
Overall
rotations and
translations
are removed
Deviations
combine PG
error and
chamber
mounting
Max x/y
dev is
2.6mm
Still a
tilt?
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
cm
16
PG to DDD summary
Deviation of PG from standard geometry in the
X/Y plane is at most 2.2mm for ME+1/2 and
2.6mm for ME+1/3.
RMS for X deviations is
.7 for ME+1/2
.8 for ME+1/3
RMS for Y deviations is
.9 for ME+1/2
1.5 for ME+1/3
RMS for Z is about 6. and 5.5mm
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
17
Now Compare Cocoa to DDD
Cocoa errors and chamber mismounts both
contribute to this
Remove overall disk rotation and translation to
get a picture of the internal shifting
Only 6 chambers available for ME+1/2
Only 5 chambers for ME+1/3 (PT6 bad)
Does NOT display chamber tilts
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
18
Expect
Z shift of ring due to disk bending will be gone
Rotation of disk will be gone
Chamber mismounting, sensor mismeasure, and
Cocoa fit error will remain
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
19
ME+1/3 deviation changes
5 measured centers
Overall rotation
and translation is
removed
No more than a few
dozen microns
difference between
the patterns found
with field off and
field on
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Animated
cm
20
Cocoa Estimates
Cocoa vs Ideal deviation RMSs are comparable to
and smaller than (on the average) PG vs Ideal
deviation RMSs: next slide’s table
Cocoa better than PG?
Deviation averages aren’t always 0 because of
missing measurements
BUT
Cocoa may be biased to finding things close to the
ideal, since the ideal geometry is one of the
inputs!
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
21
“Cocoa(0T) vs Ideal” vs “PG vs Ideal”
Variation of Deviations
Cocoa
Cocoa
PG Apin
PG Apin
ME+1/2
ME+1/3
ME+1/2
ME+1/3
X devs
0 ± 1.2
0 ± 0.8
0 ± 0.7
0 ± 0.8
Y devs
0.1 ± 0.7
0.2 ± 0.6
0.2 ± 0.9
1.1 ± 1.5
Z devs
0 ± 0.4
-0.5 ± 0.8
3.1 ± 6.0
1.8 ± 5.5
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
22
Check for Bias
Create a new 0T SDF file using PG measurements
instead of Ideal geometry as the starting point
for chamber positions
Compare fits from this special run to the normal
0T run
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
23
ME+1/3 0T Cocoa fits using PG start
X
Y
Z
ME+1/3_03
5595.34
2033.7
6866.29
ME+1/3_09
1035.84
5860.48
6863.06
ME+1/3_14
-3826.75
4559.44
6864.58
ME+1/3_20
-5863.59
-1034.74
6869.03
ME+1/3_27
-1032.91
-5863.23
6870
ME+1/3_33
4558.73
-3827.16
6875.77
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
24
Special 0T – normal 0T
ME+1/3_0
3
PG not ME+1/3_0
available 9
ME+1/3_1
4
ME+1/3_2
0
ME+1/3_2
7
ME+1/3_3
3
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
X
Y
Z
2.13
0.39
0.01
0
0
0
-0.76
0.73
0.13
-2.64
-0.7
0.31
-0.39
-1.86
-0.01
0.52
-0.66
-0.01
25
Special 0T – normal 0T: notes
1.
The difference between using PG and Ideal
geometry as a starting point has little effect on
the Z fit: 10 microns in most places
2.
HSLM2 did not have good PG measurements
for the alignment pins, so the Special run used
Ideal measurements
3.
X and Y are not well constrained without the
presence of the Transfer Lines.
4.
The fact that the Z measurement is bad at PT6
is irrelevant to this comparison, which studies
fit stability
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
26
3.8T Initial Chamber Pos from PG
X
Y
Z
ME+1/3_03
5595.336
2033.726
6864.532
ME+1/3_09
1035.726
5860.509
6863.053
ME+1/3_14
-3826.607
4559.585
6864.728
ME+1/3_20
-5863.667
-1034.446
6867.583
ME+1/3_27
-1032.655
-5863.300
6866.901
ME+1/3_33
4559.190
-3826.700
6866.523
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
27
Special 3.8T – Original 3.8T
X
Y
Z
ME+1/3_03
2.136
0.388
0.016
ME+1/3_09
-0.003
0.000
-0.002
ME+1/3_14
-0.759
0.725
0.134
ME+1/3_20
-2.638
-0.703
0.319
ME+1/3_27
-0.385
-1.865
-0.012
ME+1/3_33
0.099
-1.085
-0.917
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
28
Conclusions
Cocoa fit for ME+1/3 chambers is stable with
respect to initial conditions in Z
Photogrammetry includes spurious outliers
Cocoa deviations from the ideal are tighter than
PG deviations, even if PG values were the
starting point
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
29
Blessing for ME+1/3 chamber Z?
ME+1/3_03
0T Pos mm 0T Tilt mrad 3.8T Pos
mm
6866.29
-0.5
6864.532
3.8T Tilt
mrad
1.53
ME+1/3_09
6863.06
-0.83
6863.053
1.99
ME+1/3_14
6864.58
-1.14
6864.728
1.09
ME+1/3_20
6869.03
0.41
6867.583
2.63
ME+1/3_27
6870
-1.93
6866.901
-0.69
Average
6866.59
-0.8
6863.36
1.3
Δ from
nominal
-0.85mm
-0.8mrad
-4.08mm
1.3mrad
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
30
TODO
Slide comparing alignment pin PG to coded
target PG to DCOPS PG
Include pictures of system SLM by SLM
Outer Laser position/direction not reasonable
But Cocoa intersections with CCD seem OK
Z-sensor dowel not cleanly matched to distance
No labels
Not complete
Very hard to understand the current pictures: both
cluttered and obscure
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
31
Evaluate the PG
Photogrammetry
errors are not 300μ
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
32
DCOPS targets
DCOPS on Transfer Plate, chamber 3 outer
and chamber 3 inner have three 1.27mm
PG targets on top.
These were included in the survey.
In the following table the three
measurements were averaged for each of
the 18 visible DCOPS
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
33
Variation of PG Z for DCOPS
Xfer
Ave
Xfer
Rms
3 out
Ave
3 out
Rms
3 in
Ave
3 in
Rms
HSLM1
-818.627
0.169
-819.137
0.097
-818.447
0.193
HSLM2
-821.44
0.037
-826.92
0.385
-820.46
0.198
HSLM3
-819.437
0.054
-820.387
0.067
-818.577
0.197
HSLM4
-817.093
0.040
-818.067
0.099
-817.37
0.169
HSLM5
-823.65
0.082
-831.597
0.737
-819.617
0.148
HSLM6
-819.76
0.092
-822.547
0.238
-818.847
0.302
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
PG target position 3-point ave/rms 34
DCOPS PG Variation Along Line
Ave Z
Rms Z
HSLM1
-818.737
0.292233
HSLM2
-822.94
2.842581
HSLM3
-819.467
0.739234
HSLM4
-817.51
0.409507
HSLM5
-824.954
4.977033
HSLM6
-820.384
1.573732
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
35
Evaluation of DCOPS targets
Consistency of measurement:
The Transfer Plate DCOPS are measured
significantly better than the rest
HSLM5 outer DCOPS are not very consistent
Consistency along line:
Chamber mounting variations contribute!
HSLM2 and HSLM5 show unreasonably large
fluctuations
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
36
Coded Target Z – Predicted Z
ME+1/3 chambers
Alignment pins used
to predict Z of
coded target given
its X/Y
Variation exceeds
425microns
Looks like single
distribution, NOT
a narrow one with a few typos
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
mm
37
Chamber surface Z’s from PG
Apin
outer
Apin
inner
Coded
DCOPS
3 outer
DCOPS
3 inner
Diff outer
Diff inner
HSLM1
-696.47
-696.93
-697.44
-697.497
-696.807
-1.02667
0.123333
HSLM2
NA
-697.98
-699.06
-705.28
-698.82
NA
-0.84
HSLM3
-696.89
-696.3
-698.39
-698.747
-696.937
-1.85667
-0.63667
HSLM4
-694.78
-695.64
-696.72
-696.427
-695.73
-1.64667
-0.09
HSLM5
-699.15
-697.15
-699.21
-709.957
-697.977
-10.8067
-0.82667
HSLM6
-700.4
-696.53
-697.45
-700.907
-697.207
-0.50667
-0.67667
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
38
Z’s from PG vs data
• HSLM5 outer
chamber 3 DCOPS
measurements are
clearly out of line
• The DCOPS readings
from HSLM5
XFer 3 Out 3 In 2
correspond to
corrected values
18.98 16.72 17.10 18.26
shown at right. No
10mm shift present
mm, corrected data values
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
39
Z’s from PG vs data
• The HSLM6 outer Z
seems out of line
with the rest in the
line, but agrees with
the alignment pin
estimate
• Data shows O(4mm)
deviation at 3 Outer
also
• PG deviation is OK
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
XFer 3 Out 3 In
2
18.32 15.79 21.32 23.45
mm, corrected data values
40
PG Conclusions
Assuming the Alignment pin and coded
target errors are comparable, the variation
on these is 1mm and not 300 microns.
If the variation is due to random errors: for a
DCOPS target at
Transfer Plate:
140μ
Outer chamber edge: 470μ
Inner chamber edge: 350μ
Other option is to disregard PG measures
with large disagreements with either other
PG measurements or with data
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
41
Distancemeter
and dists
Chamber surface
estimates
DCOPS
dowels
Laser is
wrong
somehow
ME12 ASPD
ASPD P4
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
Red=Real
Green=Sim
IR target
MAB
ASPD
42
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
43
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
44
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
45
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
46
3.8T is
bad
IR target
obscured,
Z is bad
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
47
BACKUP
MATERIAL
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
48
0T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal
6 measured centers
Overall rotation
and translation is
removed
cm
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
49
0T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal
5 measured centers
Overall rotation
and translation is
removed
cm
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
50
3.8T ME+1/2 Cocoa vs Ideal
6 measured centers
Overall rotation
and translation is
removed
cm
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
51
3.8T ME+1/3 Cocoa vs Ideal
5 measured centers
Overall rotation
and translation is
removed
cm
James N. Bellinger 2-March-2009
52